(05-12-2016 10:03 PM)Astreja Wrote: We are definitely not unique in having empathy. It exists in multiple species…..

It may well be physiological at some level, and is probably a behavior that evolution selected for. A group that respects and protects its members is a whole greater than the sum of its parts, and more likely to hold together and survive bad times.

And I agree with you, empathy is not unique, and that more cohesive groups are better able to survive than less cohesive ones. And the humanist, than non-humanist, the nihilist are the same in this regard.

But you’re one that suggested that your own moral position are not based on how you feel (physiological sensation), but how others feels. Which wouldn’t be true for other animals, so you seem to be suggesting something unique here.

It also should be noted that humanism is not synonomous with our biological moral inclinations, so in arguing for evolutionary aspects here you’re not defending humanism.

What I would say is that you likely frame your own inclinations and attitudes, and values shaped by a variety of external and internal factors, as humanistic. And not the other way around, where subscribing to humanism your predisposed values and inclinations were reshaped into conformity with it. Humanism for you, is just a rationalization after the fact. Its just a veneer, a dress your throw on top.

You have no real obligation to humanistic dictates and values, it’s just whats currently trending in your current predicament, disposable when an opportune time arrives. You live no more in accordance with an actual moral philosophy, than other animals do. Aint that right?

Humanism seems to neither express any real moral obligation, or servitude, it just merely a form of self-expression, a way to merely frame how you see yourself presently.

Quote:How do you propose to demonstrate that it is false?

Ideally it would be demonstrated by asking a series of questions, and obtaining forthcoming responses, until the light dawns.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(26-11-2016 11:43 PM)666wannabe Wrote: On The Atheist Experience, Episode #452, 1:04-1:06”, Keryn Glasser offered a good, if somewhat over-simplified, explanation for the source of the different epistemological orientations of theistic believers and atheistic non-believers:

“There are two ways you can raise a kid. You can raise a kid so that when you set rules. You explain to them why they should follow those rules, like, you shouldn't leave the refrigerator open, because it costs so much money when the refrigerator keeps trying to cool itself and then we'll go broke; you shouldn't leave all the lights on because it will raise up the electric bill; you shouldn't leave the door open, because the house will get hot; you shouldn't do drugs, because you might get all these diseases and illness and, blah-blah-blah; you shouldn't have sex, because of this reason; blah-blah-blah-blah, or you can be the kind of parent who says, 'You shouldn't do this, that, or the other, because I SAID SO!'

“What's going to happen with the one is that, when they grow up, they're going to understand why all these things are bad. They're going to go out in the community, and they're going to follow all the rules. What's going to happen with the other is that they're going to go out into the community and they're going to think, 'At last, FREEDOM. I don't have to obey my parents, anymore, because I'm not living under their house.' (sic) They're going to do everything wrong until they figure out for themselves why those things are actually wrong.

“It's the same with Christianity. One big problem that Christians have with atheists is that they can't figure out why, if you weren't terrified by the wrath of God, why you wouldn't go out and rape and steal and pillage and kill. Because—I'm guessing—that's the first thing they'd do if they lost God.

“Not to that extreme, but I happen to know a doctor who asked me that question, and I said, 'You're a doctor. Don't you think that healing and taking care of...I mean, would you kill people if you lost God. And he said HELL. YEAH!'

This offers an explanation of why religious people and Christians, in particular, generally insist on legalistically adhering to a dogma (which is accepted on faith) instead of making the effort to think for themselves.

Apologetics, rather than just being the attempt to justify belief in a dogma, is the attempt to justify encroachments on that dogma, such as, in the case of some Christian denominations, “I am a sinner, but my sins are forgiven through the sacrifice of Jesus, so I am not under condemnation for my sin”. In other words, “The devil makes me do it!” This is nothing less than the abrogation of personal responsibility—a mindset that has always been and continues to be the source of much damage to world society.

What forgiveness for sins, while satisfying a narcissistic self-concern, fails to take into consideration is the harm done to others. It doesn't matter how many Christs die on a cross, the harm done to others cannot be undone and one's responsibility for causing that harm cannot be erased. Non-believers, at least, those with a humanistic morality, do take the interests of others, along with the self, as a primary consideration.

As Ghandi stated, “I do not seek redemption from the consequences of sin, I seek to be redeemed from sin, itself”.

I am really at a loss trying to understand this post or what Keryn Glasser was thinking.

This particular paragraph is particularly puzzling:

"“It's the same with Christianity. One big problem that Christians have with atheists is that they can't figure out why, if you weren't terrified by the wrath of God, why you wouldn't go out and rape and steal and pillage and kill. Because—I'm guessing—that's the first thing they'd do if they lost God.

“Not to that extreme, but I happen to know a doctor who asked me that question, and I said, 'You're a doctor. Don't you think that healing and taking care of...I mean, would you kill people if you lost God. And he said HELL. YEAH!'

This offers an explanation of why religious people and Christians, in particular, generally insist on legalistically adhering to a dogma (which is accepted on faith) instead of making the effort to think for themselves."

Has Keryn Glasser even read the New Testament?

I came across the same sort of talk on a video of Sam Harris talking with Resa Aslan.

Sam Harris reads from the Old Testament about god saying men should beat their wives if they don't sleep with them and then reads from the New Testament, saying it shows a different approach to these issues...lol

Reza Azlan says that the Christian god "seems" to be different from either Yahweh or Allah.

Where in the NT do we have Jesus telling people to adhere to dogma? The NT posits a very rational principle of "Do unto others..." as the central norm and then provides a lot of illustrations, or parables. When asked why he speaks in parables he explains that while he and the disciples have the smarts to interpret this principle, most people don't.

Christianity rejects the idea that you should act morally to avoid the wrath of god, because you have violated rules brought down from a mountain top where your spiritual leader has been "warned" about your naughty behaviour and given you see rules to follow.

JC also rejects Judaic rituals, eats on the Sabbath etc.

So, we have Keryn Glasser lecturing about Christianity without having a clue that it has in it a rational, secular principle which has no reference in it to doing things because you are afraid of the wrath of god.

I grew up with "Christian" parents who were church elders and they never said anything about me having to "behave" or face the wrath of god, nor is something I ever heard from any member of my extended family or friends. It maybe that there are fire and brimstone evangelicals who preach this but it is hardly right to start telling people that their religion is just a "wrathful" god telling you what to do when, patently, it isn't and the religion plainly sets out a Grundnorm which requires you to think about what you do and govern yourself, not out of fear of god, but in terms of how you would feel if someone else treated you that way.

Christianity, I thought, was all a god who loved people and would forgive them? No? Have I got this wrong? I suppose Reza and Kerym weren't raised in Christianity, but I was, so, hey, what do I know?

(06-12-2016 07:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote: You have no real obligation to humanistic dictates and values, it’s just whats currently trending in your current predicament, disposable when an opportune time arrives. You live no more in accordance with an actual moral philosophy, than other animals do. Aint that right?

No, it is not right. In fact, I would go so far as to call it insulting and borderline libellous.

Tomasia, you might be interested to know that I was a humanist before I knew what a humanist was. I took the label because it correctly identified what I already was, and had been since long before My teenage years.

Belonging to the local Humanist organization gives Me opportunities to socialize with like-minded people and participate in community initiatives, such as supplying clothing and food to the homeless or pet food to animal shelters. I also get to hear some marvelous guest speakers.

You seem hell-bent on an all-or-nothing approach. Your posts imply that if a humanist slips up just once, then the philosophy is all for naught and therefore worthless. No. That is *not* how this works. A philosophy of life is something to strive for, and something to return to, if and when one fails.

And if we do fail, it is ourselves and our communities that we fail -- not some philosophy.

(06-12-2016 12:02 AM)morondog Wrote: You will note that exhibit A, Tommy shit-for-brains, has not told us what is good about his morality, what makes it better than a humanist outlook. Instead he has opted for more shit-slinging, because he knows that he can't actually say something positive about Christian morality. There is nothing positive about it.

You right I'm not particularly interested is explaining or defending my religious beliefs. And I'd imagine if you were interested in what theists believed you'd be in a theist forum.

I'm interested in gauging the veracity of my own conclusions when it comes to atheists such as yourself, and atheists who subscribe to humanism. In my views their moral beliefs are incoherent and contradictory, that they have a difficult time working out their incoherencies. I'm just testing this conclusion out, over and over again, to see how well it holds, to see if people here are better able to answer the questions proposed to them, than expected.

Instead what I find is that the common response, as it is in most cases of attempting to point out people's contradictory positions, is that they tend to become irate rather quickly, attempt to deflect, find whys out of how uncomfortable they feel, such as making it about the individual asking the questions. Clearly you're not a part of an atheist forum because you're curious about the thought patterns of theists. I on the other hand am, hence my reason here. I have a variety of unflattering conclusions, but I like to test those out whenever I get an opportunity, by gauging actual atheists.

Quote:Yes, Tommy, I have desires. Sometimes even desires that run contrary to the law. And funny enough, because the law is there I don't do that which I desire. Unless I think I won't get caught. The difference is, my desires do not include murdering people, raping them etc, and I don't need a monstrous death God with a disgusting moral record himself to tell me not to. You apparently do.

And if you did have a desire to murder people, or rape people, and thought you won't get caught, you perhaps would engage in these behaviors. The only reason you don't do these things, is primarily because you have no real desire to do them, and a fear of getting caught by the authorities.

Quote:My moral code is my own. I have no problem with that. Your moral code you claim is based off some stupid book, but the stupid book includes gems like stoning your son for disobedience, so unless you really are that fucken dumb, your morals are subjective too.

Your moral code is do as you desire, and avoid getting caught.

"You right I'm not particularly interested is explaining or defending my religious beliefs. And I'd imagine if you were interested in what theists believed you'd be in a theist forum. "

To further highlight your issues:
1) You aren't particularly interested in explaining or defending, but you are preaching it. Which means that you hypocritically believe we have to defend our views/beliefs/opinions but you don't have to because you're "not particularly interested."

2) You are on an atheist forum. You are a theist. If you don't want to be asked to support your bullshit, perhaps it is you who are on the wrong forum.

(06-12-2016 12:51 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: "You right I'm not particularly interested is explaining or defending my religious beliefs. And I'd imagine if you were interested in what theists believed you'd be in a theist forum. "

To further highlight your issues:
1) You aren't particularly interested in explaining or defending, but you are preaching it. Which means that you hypocritically believe we have to defend our views/beliefs/opinions but you don't have to because you're "not particularly interested."

I'm only here to vindicate my own forgone conclusions about atheists such as yourself. I have variety of unflattering views of individuals such as yourself, and I'm here to gauge the accuracy of my own assumptions here, using what I see as the best possible, and most available means to do so.

Judging that I prefer to keep my own personal religious beliefs off the table, not sure how I can be accused of preaching. If anything from your perspective, it should just be that I'm just seeking to validate my own prejudices, support my own opinions.

I ask a variety of questions, draw my own predictions of what the expected responses will be, and what can be assumed based on those responses. Like for you, the expected response to any question, is to avoid answering it, or replying strawman, or some series of insults. But more or less, when it comes to you, you're just a pole to pee on.

Quote:2) You are on an atheist forum. You are a theist. If you don't want to be asked to support your bullshit, perhaps it is you who are on the wrong forum.

Interesting, I didn't read that in the forum guidelines or rules.

But no, the right forum is merely that which serves my purpose, and for the time being this one does just fine.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(06-12-2016 12:51 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: "You right I'm not particularly interested is explaining or defending my religious beliefs. And I'd imagine if you were interested in what theists believed you'd be in a theist forum. "

To further highlight your issues:
1) You aren't particularly interested in explaining or defending, but you are preaching it. Which means that you hypocritically believe we have to defend our views/beliefs/opinions but you don't have to because you're "not particularly interested."

I'm only here to vindicate my own forgone conclusions about atheists such as yourself. I have variety of unflattering views of individuals such as yourself, and I'm here to gauge the accuracy of my own assumptions here, using what I see as the best possible, and most available means to do so.

Judging that I prefer to keep my own personal religious beliefs off the table, not sure how I can be accused of preaching. If anything from your perspective, it should just be that I'm just seeking to validate my own prejudices, support my own opinions.

I ask a variety of questions, draw my own predictions of what the expected responses will be, and what can be assumed based on those responses. Like for you, the expected response to any question, is to avoid answering it, or replying strawman, or some series of insults. But more or less, when it comes to you, you're just a pole to pee on.

Quote:2) You are on an atheist forum. You are a theist. If you don't want to be asked to support your bullshit, perhaps it is you who are on the wrong forum.

Interesting, I didn't read that in the forum guidelines or rules.

But no, the right forum is merely that which serves my purpose, and for the time being this one does just fine.

And all the while you fail to realize that people respond to you based on the substance of what you say. Which means you're not judging us based on any objective set of characters and are instead judging us for pointing out your issues. (You don't live in a vacuum)

(06-12-2016 02:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote: I'm only here to vindicate my own forgone conclusions about atheists such as yourself... But no, the right forum is merely that which serves my purpose, and for the time being this one does just fine.

How unfortunate that you have a "purpose" that's so dependent on us. Aren't you secure enough in your belief?